title (fwd)

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:26:50 -0700 (PDT)

Message-Id: <199609220826.BAA01714@server.livingston.com>
Subject: title (fwd)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>

Once upon a time Carl Morris shaped the electrons to say...
>HTML is always stating that <TITLE> is required.  I honestly see no
>reason why, it doesn't always have a meaningful purpose, but the main
>arguement is that HTML also describes that <HTML> and <HEAD> are not
>required...  If I take this right though, a proper implementation must
>only accept <TITLE> inside <HEAD> and then must only accept <HEAD>
>inside <HTML>...  what is it that allows <TITLE> to be a requirement
>but the others not?  Does the use of <TITLE> also bring in the

Because the others are assumed from content.



is perfectly valid.  The TITLE implies it is in the HEAD and that implies
the entire thing is in an HTML container.  <P> implies the start of BODY.


is *NOT* valid as the <P> starts by implying the BODY - which causes a problem
as that implies no head, which implies no TITLE - which is required.  And
then there is another problem, assuming it gets by the <P> bit it then 
encounters <TITLE> which implies HEAD - which must come *before* BODY - which
was implied by <P>/

>assumption of the <HEAD> and <HTML> tags?  If so, would it be incorrect
>to place <TITLE> at the end of a document?  I do not see such a

Yes it is incorrect.

>requirement made in the HTML specification...  Is it this same kind of

It is there, the DTD requires this if you read it.

Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 6920 Koll Center Parkway  #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566
See me in person: Internet Expo, Boston, MA, October 16-17, Booth 422 ;-)